Tell me more about why some guy shooting 3 people is such a different situation than someone shooting 5? Or 50? Why can't these problems be solved by the same solution? A solution like the one implemented in Australia did solve both the 3 and the 5 and the 50. Less guns around means less mass shootings in Australia.

I think arguments like that are made to obfuscate the problem. Oh, yesterday's mass shooting was a spree across several sites, no problem then.

Right... so if your solution is to remove guns, and you’d want to remove guns regardless of mass shootings, then it makes sense to lump lots of unrelated problems together and call them the same thing. That a great example of obfuscation.

First, there will absolutely positively never be a ban on guns. It doesn’t matter if a few hundred people or a million a year fall victim to violence involving guns. The US could not survive as a country if it attempted such a thing. It’s a fundamental civil right. There are hundreds of millions of guns in civilian possession which could never be collected. In a couple hundred years people will own high power lasers that can burn a house in half or something. That is an absolute and unchangeable, because the constitution says so, because most people in the country say so, and cause you’d have to kill probably 80 million people to do anything different. If you can’t deal with that reality, then pick another country that chooses to live in another way.

Second, I think you know a murder-suicide of people known to the aggressor is completely different than someone attacking a crowd of random people. I think you know criminals shooting up criminals over business is different than a mass shooter. And I think you know a politically to religiously motivated terrorist attack is different.

Right... so if your solution is to remove guns, and you’d want to remove guns regardless of mass shootings, then it makes sense to lump lots of unrelated problems together and call them the same thing. That a great example of obfuscation.

First, there will absolutely positively never be a ban on guns. It doesn’t matter if a few hundred people or a million a year fall victim to violence involving guns. The US could not survive as a country if it attempted such a thing. It’s a fundamental civil right. There are hundreds of millions of guns in civilian possession which could never be collected. In a couple hundred years people will own high power lasers that can burn a house in half or something. That is an absolute and unchangeable, because the constitution says so, because most people in the country say so, and cause you’d have to kill probably 80 million people to do anything different. If you can’t deal with that reality, then pick another country that chooses to live in another way.

Second, I think you know a murder-suicide of people known to the aggressor is completely different than someone attacking a crowd of random people. I think you know criminals shooting up criminals over business is different than a mass shooter. And I think you know a politically to religiously motivated terrorist attack is different.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And what about all of the innocent people caught in the crossfire of all those "different" attacks? No. Your arguments still don't hold any weight.

Just for kicks, I took your paragraph about how the US will end if guns are banned and substituted slavery for owning guns. It fits exactly what a slave owner would have said! Except for the lasers of course. I'm sure that slave owner would have said "you'll have to kill 620,000 people and it's in the constitution ". As you know, we changed the constitution and it did cost 620,000 lives. But it was the right thing to do.

I have not fully formed my idea of what the right thing to do about gun control is, but that does not stop me from calling out BS arguments. And your assertion that we can never have gun control because 80 million people will go out fighting Rambo style is the silliest one I have heard in a while.

Just for kicks, I took your paragraph about how the US will end if guns are banned and substituted slavery for owning guns. It fits exactly what a slave owner would have said! Except for the lasers of course. I'm sure that slave owner would have said "you'll have to kill 620,000 people and it's in the constitution ". As you know, we changed the constitution and it did cost 620,000 lives. But it was the right thing to do.

I have not fully formed my idea of what the right thing to do about gun control is, but that does not stop me from calling out BS arguments. And your assertion that we can never have gun control because 80 million people will go out fighting Rambo style is the silliest one I have heard in a while.

There’s never been a right to own slaves. If you tried to take away free speech or right to a fair trial, protection from self incrimination or protection from illegal search and seizure, the country also would end.

More likely a constitutional convention would be called to provide for separation or a case pressed, but certainly there’d be same violence and the military would be split. This country was founded on and has always been more concerned with preservation of certain rights than being in the same county together. You’re watching Brexit unfold over much smaller problems and you don’t think Americans with their inherent distrust and disdain for authority would choose their rights over their country if it came down to it?

This country was founded on and has always been more concerned with preservation of certain rights than being in the same county together.

...correct me if I'm wrong but it was an amendment to the constitution that came a few years after the constitution was initially signed so not exactly what we founded the country on. Unless I'm misunderstanding as I'm speed-reading at my desk.

And what about all of the innocent people caught in the crossfire of all those "different" attacks? No. Your arguments still don't hold any weight.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t really understand your point. People die, therefore the cause of their deaths is irrelevant?

If someone is going to murder their spouse and kid then themselves, what they use to do it with is irrelevant. We need to work on preventing the situation from getting to that point.

If you care about the number of people dying by firearms, then you should be talking about suicide prevention, and fighting gang violence with already illegally acquired and possessed guns. Even if you think gun control is the answer, you should be talking about handguns.

...correct me if I'm wrong but it was an amendment to the constitution that came a few years after the constitution was initially signed so not exactly what we founded the country on. Unless I'm misunderstanding as I'm speed-reading at my desk.

The bill of rights were adopted in conjunction with and conditioned to ratification of the constitution.

Anyone in the military who went against the wishes of a constitutional convention would be guilty of treason. I think we are getting to the crux of this discussion, you can't conceive that society can change it's mind and even the constitution about gun ownership. Just like drunk driving used to be acceptable. It might not happen today, but a few more years and a few more high profile mass shootings might just do it. I also understand now why the right wing talking points are to ignore or minimise the problem. It won't work.

Anyone in the military who went against the wishes of a constitutional convention would be guilty of treason. I think we are getting to the crux of this discussion, you can't conceive that society can change it's mind and even the constitution about gun ownership. Just like drunk driving used to be acceptable. It might not happen today, but a few more years and a few more high profile mass shootings might just do it. I also understand now why the right wing talking points are to ignore or minimise the problem. It won't work.

Anyone in the military who went against the wishes of a constitutional convention would be guilty of treason. I think we are getting to the crux of this discussion, you can't conceive that society can change it's mind and even the constitution about gun ownership. Just like drunk driving used to be acceptable. It might not happen today, but a few more years and a few more high profile mass shootings might just do it. I also understand now why the right wing talking points are to ignore or minimise the problem. It won't work.

I certainly support the rule of law, as I think most Americans do. I think almost everyone is also realistic and pragmatic enough to know civilians alone could not *successfully* defeat the full might of the military. If it became necessary for states to separate themselves, and destruction of fundamental civil rights would do that, then I think a primarily peaceful path would be pursued. A case seeking to overturn Texas v white would be brought to the court. If that were not successful then a likely simultaneous move by a convention of states to clarify language on an exit path consistent with the rules against perpetuities, against contracts of adhesion, and the natural law right of self determination.

Most certainly the military would split, likely nullifying it as an effective tool to enforce an unconstitutional destruction of fundamental rights. But certainly if there were to be a fight, it would be the most costly in human history.

If you want to argue if the military would comply if the country adopted an amendment repealing the 2nd, or course they would, begrudgingly. But, deaths equivalent to a mass nuclear exchange could not move enough states to ratify such an amendment. It’s simple passage through congress would prompt action to clarify a legal exit route by states who cannot accept that scenario.

If you want to conceive a world where the constitution could be changed to eliminate this right, then that’s fine I guess. I don’t think it’s remotely realistic. But maybe you find a path to peaceful separation as a response to be equally unrealistic. That’s fine too. In the meantime, we have a constitution that says what it says and those rights won’t be abridged no matter the cost.

It’s terrible when the klan marches through a Jewish town, but that is the cost of the kind of free speech we’ve adopted in this country as opposed to how other countries have defined that right. This just is what it is to be an American. You can either choose not to be an American, or you can attack the reasons these tools are misused. Personally, I prefer the latter, as people will find other tools to misuse if we don’t get at the root of why they do these things.

I certainly support the rule of law, as I think most Americans do. I think almost everyone is also realistic and pragmatic enough to know civilians alone could not *successfully* defeat the full might of the military. If it became necessary for states to separate themselves, and destruction of fundamental civil rights would do that, then I think a primarily peaceful path would be pursued. A case seeking to overturn Texas v white would be brought to the court. If that were not successful then a likely simultaneous move by a convention of states to clarify language on an exit path consistent with the rules against perpetuities, against contracts of adhesion, and the natural law right of self determination.

Most certainly the military would split, likely nullifying it as an effective tool to enforce an unconstitutional destruction of fundamental rights. But certainly if there were to be a fight, it would be the most costly in human history.

If you want to argue if the military would comply if the country adopted an amendment repealing the 2nd, or course they would, begrudgingly. But, deaths equivalent to a mass nuclear exchange could not move enough states to ratify such an amendment. It’s simple passage through congress would prompt action to clarify a legal exit route by states who cannot accept that scenario.

If you want to conceive a world where the constitution could be changed to eliminate this right, then that’s fine I guess. I don’t think it’s remotely realistic. But maybe you find a path to peaceful separation as a response to be equally unrealistic. That’s fine too. In the meantime, we have a constitution that says what it says and those rights won’t be abridged no matter the cost.

It’s terrible when the klan marches through a Jewish town, but that is the cost of the kind of free speech we’ve adopted in this country as opposed to how other countries have defined that right. This just is what it is to be an American. You can either choose not to be an American, or you can attack the reasons these tools are misused. Personally, I prefer the latter, as people will find other tools to misuse if we don’t get at the root of why they do these things.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Texas, there is another option - Americans come together and change the culture for the better. Stop talking in absolutes as if nothing can ever change. It can and it has to or the future of America is quite bleak.

Really, I think you are being a bit over dramatic. Society changes all the time and the way the constitution is interpreted changes as well. You know that. The same logic that says random citizens can't have surface to air missile launchers will one day say that they can't have assault rifles. No constitutional changes required. Apply the same logic to more guns over time until we get to where society wants to be.

Don't worry, we can regulate that militia. I think it's obvious that shooting up a church full of people cause you are angry at your MIL is an indicator that this self appointed militia needs a bit more regulation.

59 dead and 851 injured in Las Vegas and we couldn't even get a ban on bump stocks. I think this one is going to be thoughts and prayers only, assuming the shooter is white. If the shooter is brown we may get a travel ban on Venezuelans.